Train engineers are required to sound train horns at railroad crossings for safety reasons. In 2005, the Federal Railroad Administration developed the Federal Train Horn Rule. This new set of rules established standards for how train engineers must sound the horns, including the decibel range of the horn.

At the same time, the rules established criteria that would allow for local jurisdictions (like Castle Rock) to silence the regular sounding of horns if certain improvements are implemented in place of the train horn. This is referred to as establishing a quiet zone.

It’s important to note that, even with the establishment of a quiet zone, train engineers can still sound the horns if they perceive a danger or a threat.

Options for creating a quiet zone could include completely closing a crossing, installing raised medians, installing additional gates, creating one-way streets, or using horns at the gates rather than on the train – called wayside horns.

The goal of a quiet zone is to reach a certain level of safety, defined in a measurement index by the Federal Railroad Administration. Any one or a combination of safety options can be used as long as they reach a certain threshold for safety as defined by that index. It is also possible that using one of the measures at one crossing can reach an appropriate safety score within that index to quiet the horn at multiple crossings located near each other, such as the crossings at Second, Third and Fifth streets.

Town Council has also considered installing additional gates at all three crossings, as well as wayside horns, which put the horns at each crossing, rather than on the train.

In addition, Town Council has been provided an overview of a variety of combinations that could be considered. A few of these included: turning Second and Third streets into one-way streets; installing wayside horn systems that place a horn at the crossing to use in place of the horn on the train; and installing medians along Second and Third streets. Traffic impacts, emergency operational impacts and higher implementation costs were the general reasons these were not pursued further.